Sep 6-12 1999

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Sep 6 08:46:49 1999

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:46:48 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show Special Edition

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990906073021.13105A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Dear Readers,

There are still no archived posts in Rootsweb so-called mailing list

archives; even lists that get hundreds of hits a day are not being

archived. So here's some news and some updates on the news to tide you

over.

Newspeak: In a post to Board-L [that we've received mysteriously]

NC Tim Stowell proposes the following, "in the spirit of openness":

"I'd like to propose to the Board that we move almost all talking to

Board-L with the exception of the following items....

1. Grievances brought by members through their elected representatives

2. Complaints about sites - so as not to injure the reputation of the CC

whose site is being complained about

3. Notices to fellow Board members of being out of town - protection from

folks who might be looking for 'I'm going to be out of town messages' so

as to select one's property for burglary.

At the suggestion of a Board member I include a supplement to items 1 and

2: when either one of these involve an interpretation of the Bylaws - a

synopsis of the complaint or grievance will be provided on this list along

with the results of the Board's decision - again to protect the privacy of

the individual(s) and/or their sites."

[there's a new one: burglars cruising RW mailing lists looking for houses

to burgle.]

Strangely enough, we also hear that a full agenda of items is currently

being discussed on Board-Exec, including amending the bylaws to remove

Board members and the NC, redefining the special projects, and preventing

project members from having pages affiliated with both the USGW Project

and other online genealogy/history societies. We welcome these

discussions being moved to Board-L.

You Read It Here First: Linda Lewis has publicly announced that she is now

working for Root$web. In a message posted yesterday, she says, "I've been

offered a part-time position on the staff of Rootsweb, to help with the

NON-genealogy Communities, and have accepted. This will not affect my

volunteer work with the USGenWeb Archives or VAGenWeb, other than

delegating more."

Domain Names Revisited: After surfacing from under her rock, Linda has

this to say about the xxgenweb directory names at Root$web, at least one

of which is currently being used for a nonUSGW page, "They were never

created exclusively for USGW, although some of us thought they should

be." [Ah. Does this mean we can look forward to the rest of the unused

ones being given out for non-project pages? I seem to recall Brian "My

Laws, Not The Bylaws" Leverich posting that Root$web would respect the

bylaws of the USGW and act toward it accordingly; the _very first_ article

of the bylaws claims the xxgenweb designations for the project. But no

matter, Root$web will do whatever it wants and there isn't anything USGW

can do about it but pretend its OK.]

Respecting The Board: Today, some 6 months after the Board sent the

initial request for change to Mr. Leverich, the domains usgenweb.org and

usgenweb.net _still_ show Nancy Trice as the administrative conact.

Altering Records: Root$web has announced a new "feature" of its recent

acquisition of the SSDI [I guess this is what is supposed to make it stand

out from all the _other_ free SSDIs out there]. From the announcement in

this week's [9/2] NewZoo Review: "Now you can attach a message to any of

the more than 61 million records in the Social Security Death Index (SSDI)

at RootsWeb by using a "post-em"... Some suggested uses: attach notes to

the records of your relatives, providing researchers with a direct link to

you; add background information on an individual in the database, such

as pointers to other records relating to that individual; or add a

correction to an incorrect record. Check the records of individuals of

interest to you often. Someone recently might have left a note there for

you." [Yes, don't forget to visit often; it really racks up the bucks from

the ad banners.] There is, of course, no quality control on

"corrections", and nothing to prevent misleading or outright false data

being added to the database. But "quantity" is always better than

"quality" when "quantity" increases the bottom line, apparently. Root$web

is beginning to look more like Halbert's with each passing day. [Oh, BTW,

there is an undated notice on the SSDI pages at RW; sys the "Post-em's are

down until tomorrow."]

There you have it---a Daily Board Show Special Report.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Sep 7 14:19:07 1999

Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:19:05 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: DBS Special Edition

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990907132322.27570A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Dear Readers,

We are now eight days into Root$web's broken mailing lists archives, and

I'm happy to report that they are at last aware of the problem. So, I'm

at least marginally optimistic that they will be fixed and we can be

updated on our Board's activities in a day or so. In the meantime, some

tidbits:

The New Openness: We hear that Board members are getting themselves

subbed to state lists in their regions so that they can be aware first

hand of any problems or discussions ongoing at the state level [and spy on

the CCs, or so some are saying]. Since some SCs are apparently not

notifying their CCs that the reps are subbed to the state list, be warned.

Big Brother is watching you.

Old Product,New Package: Root$web has today unveiled its bold new page

design. Their new non-genealogy communities are prominently featured

[some might say even more so than the genealogy stuff, but that's a

matter of opinion], and they appear to be finally showcasing the banners

submitted as part of their competition. The secondary pages haven't

changed, so this is still basically the same-old same-old.

A Reader Writes: In response to an article on Root$web's new "post-ems"

attachment to the SSDI data, I received the following from a reader:

"I greatly enjoy the DBS and its wit, but the following item struck me as

carping in a less than useful fashion. Quality control doesn't exist in

any site that allows individuals to post information, including all

individual web pages. While an appropriate warning might be issued with

each SSDI page the new feature is likely to prove much more helpful than

misleading."

Perhaps its my unbridled cynical nature, but this whole "post-ems" thing

just strikes me as a way to get unsourced, poor-quality data in order to

increase page hits. I could be wrong and hope I am, but we've all had

experience with fellow researchers who adamantly hold to incorrect

information, even in the face of contradictory documentation. I've

already seen one of these people on a mailing list say they were going to

rush off to correcct the "wrong" information in the SSDI. And don't

forget, Root$web has had more than a little trouble recently with people

posting misleading information to the GenConnect boards; what's to stop

the posters from scattering a few deliberately wrong "post-ems" throughout

the database? It only takes one wrong datapoint to call the accuracy of

the rest in to question. [Note, the post-ems are still "down until

tomorrow"]

[Thanks to the reader who wrote; if anyone else wants to write, please

feel free. In the absence of instruction to the contrary, I will assume

you wish to remain anonymous if your letter is posted here.]

Paperback Writer: Linda Lewis, doyenne of the Archives and self-described

Keeper of the Truth, is writing a book. She plans to publish it "soon"

and says she will give it away for free, if she can manage. Apparently,

this book will be based on her own extensive email archives, but will not

include "the private lists where some were/are planning the destruction of

The USGenWeb Project because they could not control it for their own

financial gain." [She is a one-trick pony, isn't she?] Anyways, we here

in the DBS newscube are looking forward to this book avidly. We hope its

out in time for Christmas.

In the meantime, a brief history of some events in the early history of

the Project have been posted at:

http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/ourhist.htm

This is a work in progress, but its enough to get you started!

There you have it, a Daily Board Show Special Edition!

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

----------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Sep 9 10:41:04 1999

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:41:00 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990909094034.26249A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Its about time...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

[Root$web has _finally_ managed to fix the mailing list archives, so

buckle in, this will be a long trip!]

31 Aug 1999:

Board Secretary Bill Oliver posts Fred Smoot's formal protest of the

election results [already posted here]

The NC asks for a motion to adjourn the Advisory Board for the 1998-1999

term. The motion is made, and seconded and given number 99-23.The NC

calls for a vote. The final vote is 14 ayes, 0 nays, and one not voting.

The NC posts his "ending comments: "On behalf of the USGenWeb Project

members, I would like to thank you all for your service on the Advisory

Board during this term. To the departing members: even though all our

times together were not always pleasant, for all the battles fought, for

all the battles lost or won - we still thank you for taking some of your

time away from other activities to devote to the betterment of this

Project. We wish you well in all your future endeavors within and without

the Project."

Bill Oliver sends his farewell to the group and forwards a "fish story

with a meaning" [it has to do with ethical behavior.] the NC thanks him

for sending it.

Monday 1 September 1999:

The NC calls the 1999-2000 session to order and asks each member to say

they are present. 14 members respond affirmatively [the non-responder is

Kay Mason]

Tuesday 2 Sept 1999:

The NC asks for discussion on two items of "old business": 1. Discussion

concerning a CC's right to ask for reimbursement of costs on a county site

and/or for contributions to further the site's offerings. 2. Fred Smoot's

Formal Protest - published here earlier"

The discussion on the "solicitation of funds" proceeds:

Shari Handley notes that the CC in question has removed her "funding FAQ"

and replaced with a "Volunteers and contributors FAQ" and notes other ways

the CC is encouraging volunteers to help get data online. She notes

however thta "how we, as a Project, should handle similar situations in

the future." Her thoughts are that in these circumstances, "The potential

would exist for abuse and dishonesty, and once those problems started,

we'd have one heck of a mess." She would prefer to see less data online

and preserved the "pristine, commercial and money-free nature of the

project." [oddly enough, on the Board-Exec list, she saw no problem

with what the CC was doing.]

Teri Petit notes that discussioin is proceeding on the SC-L list and they

should probably let the discussion continue there for a while.

Teri also posts a suggested amendment proposal [changes are in all caps;

she also lists reasons for the changes and asks for comments; it is

recommended to read this entire post]:

"Solicitation of funds for personal gain OR FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONAL

COSTS INCURRED IN MAINTAINING A USGENWEB SITE(1) is inappropriate. This is

defined as the direct appeal on the [deleted: home page] PAGES (2) of any

of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to [deleted:

do research,](3) pay for server space, to do look-ups, TO COVER COSTS OF

PHOTOCOPYING, MICROFILM RENTAL, OBTAINING MATERIALS FOR

TRANSCRIPTION, OR

OTHER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. [delete: etc.](4)

A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their

website

(i.e., provide server space at no cost.) [moved to here: The

acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website.](5) A

website may also include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which

they offer research services for reimbursement. IF SUCH A LINK IS

INCLUDED, A CLEAR DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN THE USGENWEB

PAGES AND

THE COORDINATOR'S PERSONAL PAGES, SO THAT A TYPICAL VISITOR WOULD

NOT

MISTAKE THE PERSONAL HOME PAGE FOR PART OF THE USGENWEB SITE.(6) A

website

may list research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire,

either by the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing

shall not be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the

main web page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the

coordinator and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such

research materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers."

Joy Fishes asks "If we do not allow CCs to accept cash, how can we allow

them to accept merchandise, such as the SK Census materials??"

Shari notes that there should be "some language about specifically

*allowing* CCs to accept donated source records or other materials" but

otherwise thinks its fine. She first says she wants some feedback from SCs

and CCs, but then asks Teri to hold off posting it to the SC list until

the rest of the Board is in agreement. [she also mentions submitting it

under the "emergency amendment" clause in the bylaws]

Teri discusses further amending the bylaws either to strictly allow _no_

donation of cash or other materials, or to more generally allow more

leniency in the acceptance of donations of cash and/or materials. She

notes, "the impression I got from the discussion on the SC list is that

most Project members find donations of materials for transcription to

be appropriate, and donations of cash to be inappropriate....Maybe we

could prohibit appeals for the donation of merchandise other than

materials to be transcribed and posted?"

In a separate post Teri also notes that specifally allowing CCs to accept

donations of materials could be a separate amendment and then they could

vote separately on them. She also notes that she does not want to submit

this under the "emergency clause", saying "if we call this "urgent", we've

pretty much lost all ability to say anything isn't urgent. The word loses

its meaning." Instead, she wants to ask 6 SCs if they would be willing

to post the amendments[s] to their state lists for possible sponsorship.

She also notes, "I think we need to get an amendment passed that amends

the By-Law on requiring state sponsorship. It's too big of a bottleneck,

as I've posted before. NOTHING has ever got more than two states to

sponsor it. But a simple, just-for-clarification, likely-to-pass amendment

might be the best way to see if the 6-states procedure can be made to work

at all. If it can, then we can try working on some more substantial

amendments." [that thud you heard was me falling to the ground...at last,

a board member who is willing to discuss amending the bylaws instead of

just saying "they aren't so bad, give them a chance to work"!]

Jim Powell notes thta instead of amending the bylaws, "A different

approach might be to create a set of Bylaw defining policies, rather than

amendments. We could start with the Funding issue. Nothing you have said

contradicts the bylaws. We can start with some basics, allow the

volunteers to look at it and make suggestions. Then we could firm it up

and present it back to the Volunteers." He also suggests including Fred

[Smoot?] on the committee to set up polling places.

Ginger Cisewski notes that although she is in agreement with Teri's

proposals, "the Board is only authorized to propose amendments under

certain circumstances. This needs to be either left to a possible future

Bylaws Review committee or it should be an individual proposal in one's

home state, following the procedure outlined in the Bylaws. Neither the

Board nor the SC list have the authority to propose Bylaws outside of the

current procedure set forth in the Bylaws. While we may not agree with all

aspects of the Bylaws, and there is definitely room for improvement, we

also can not ignore them and forge ahead at will. The Bylaws were voted in

by the membership of the project and as such it is our duty as a Board to

adhere to them."

Discussion on the "formal protest" filed by Fred Smoot:

Teri Petit feels that discussion should continue under another subject and

asks "Can somebody who got that original message post something, anything,

as a response to it, and then the rest of us can respond to that response,

so that it will all stay in the same thread?"

Friday 3 September 1999:

The discussion on the proposed amendment continues:

Teri notes that she agrees with Ginger and says she intends to do

everything in accordance with the bylaws. She notes that the bylaws say

nothing about how a state project goes about proposing an amendment or

sponsoring it, or how it is presented to the CCs in the first place. She

says she is proposiong to "to write to the state coordinators,

simply as one individual to another, not as a Board member, saying "Here's

an idea. Would any of you like to propose something like this to the CC's

in your state?" If nobody in any state takes it to their CC's, then that's

the end of it."

Ginger replies, "In that case, go for it. <g> I'm sorry, I read it as a

proposed amendment coming from the Board, which would be inappropriate."

Teri replies to Jim's suggestion regarding a "policy" document, stating

"we've both written in the past that we need a posted "Policies

and Procedures" document, which can be modified much more rapidly than

the By-Laws can be amended, but still ONLY BY A GENERAL VOTE OF EVERYONE,

and which goes into greater detail." On the topic of polling project

members, she notes, "to allay the concerns of the significant block of

volunteers who do not trust the security of software running on Rootsweb,

you are wise to suggest that any official polls take place on another

server." In regards to her proposed amendment, she says, "the amendment I

proposed is significantly more restrictive than the current By-Law read

literally. Especially the change from "home page" to "pages." It could be

argued that institutionalizing an interpretation of a By-Law which is

significantly stricter than the literal reading of that By-Law would

amount to changing it." She thinks an amendment would be the surest way

to avoid potential conflicts over interpretation but she does not consider

her proposal to be urgent.

The NC posts his message "In the Spirit of Openness" proposal [already

posted here].

Saturday 4 September 1999:

There is no Board-L traffic on this date.

[to be continued...]

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Sep 9 10:59:42 1999

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:59:40 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show, part 2

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990909104715.2878A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

[...continued...]

Sunday 5 September 1999:

There is no Board-L traffic on this date.

Monday 6 September 1999:

There is no Board-L traffic on this date.

Tuesday 7 September 1999:

There is no Board-L traffic on this date.

Wednesday 8 September 1999:

Barbara Dore posts a message notifying the group that one of the State

Coordinators has had a heart attack and will be away for a while.

"Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a

crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit."

---Freda Adler

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Sep 9 16:17:02 1999

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:17:01 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: DBS--This Just In...

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990909155959.11299A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

CO State Coordinator Lynn Waterman has lodged a formal protest over the

use of the ~cogenweb directory. As posted earlier today to the

State-Coord-L list, Lynn writes:

"Colorado's State pages were moved off of Rootsweb about a month ago. As

the SC for COGenWeb, I have the right, under our Bylaws, to move the State

pages to any server I choose. When I moved the State pages off Rootsweb, I

did not move the project pages that my ASC had on the COGenWeb site, as

that was HER project, and I felt it wasn't right for me to move them

without her permission. She was out of town at that time, I was waiting

for her return, and it was her choice to make. She contacted Brian

Leverich, owner of Rootsweb, and requested the COGenWeb site that was

already there, with her project on it, for her project, which IS a part of

the COGenWeb Project, and was rejected by Brian. He gave her another

account and she had to move her entire project to the new account.

However, as soon as she had moved her project to the new account, he

allowed a person who is NOT part of COGenWeb to take over that account

with "cogenweb" as part of the account name, which is in violation of our

Bylaws...Rootsweb has violated this Bylaw, by allowing a person who is NOT

part of COGenWeb to adopt this site, and use it for purposes of

misdirecting researchers, and as part of her personal vendetta.

According to the bylaws, the board must direct Brian to take back this

account as this person is not a member of the COGenWeb and any use of

these pages by anyone else but the State Coordinator is in violation of

the bylaws."

So far, discussion of this on the list has been brief. Kevin Fraley notes

that, "RootsWeb is not owned or controlled by US GenWeb, and Brian

Leverich is certainly under no obligation to follow the dictates of

another organization, even one with pretended "bylaws." RootsWeb owns

their servers and the naming rights to all directories and accounts. While

we may not always like the way they operate, we just have to like it or

lump it, as we have nothing to say about it..I sympathize, and I think

your complaint sounds like a valid one, but your only hope of a solution

in the manner you would like lies in asking RootsWeb nicely to grant you

the favor. Good luck to you."

In a later message, after visiting the page in question, Kevin notes, "I

have no idea who the people are doing the page, or the story behind it,

but it looks like yet again silly internal politics standing in the way of

our progress. I don't know the background of it, of course, but this

certainly appears to be a rather unfriendly act by RootsWeb, although they

are absolutely within their rights."

Susan Tortorelli notes that not only does

http://www.rootsweb.com/~cogenweb access this new non-USGW page, so does

http://www.usgenweb.com/co/

Ever trusting, George Waller notes that he's never known Root$web to do

anything detrimental to the project, so he's waiting for an explanation.

Fred Smoot notes, "This issue of name usage for directory structure is

probably the sole legal right of the webserver. The possible exception

*might* be when there is a bona fide issued trademark...I believe that the

same would be true of domain names. For example, RootsWeb Genealogical

Data Cooperative leases "usgenweb.org." Whether we like it or not, it

would appear that Dr Brian Leverich is in control of that name and he can

do with it what he will....is what is done by Dr Brian Leverich also

morally right? Since he is the presumed owner of RootsWeb.com, Inc, it

would seem that his actions should and do favor his company. Is there any

moral obligation on his part to do anything for the Project? Perhaps Dr

Brian Leverich could answer this questions. "Actions speak louder than

words." "

More news as it develops!

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Sep 10 10:37:13 1999

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:37:12 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990910092930.1878A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Do the hustle!...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content and lots of it. Read at your own

risk!

Thursday 9 September 1999:

Lynn Watermann's formal complaint regarding the ~cogenweb directory on

Root$web is forwarded to the Board twice.

Joy Fisher notes that she has "requested that the re-directs for

usgenweb.com/co and the .net and .org be changed to Lynn's new URL."

Joe Zsedeny notes, "We don't know the background of this and probably

don't want to know but maybe Rootsweb can be persuaded to change this

account. I would like suggest that you contact Rootsweb and ask that they

resolve this by assigning an account to these people which appears less

confrontational to USGenWeb folks." He says he will make a motion if it

is required.

The NC asks for a motion on Fred Smoot's formal complaint regarding the

election [see below].

The NC asks the Board to consider the "appointment or lack thereof" of a

new Board Secretary, and says, "In making a motion regarding this position

- please consider putting language into it that would define the terms

under which the Secretary position would be filled."

Joe posts, regarding the new Board Secretary, " The secretary must work

closely with you [Tim] and certainly should be someone that you feel

comfortable working with. It is up to you to keep track of business

through motion numbering and etc either thru your own efforts or thru a

secretary. If you feel we need a secretary I will make a motion to that

effect suggesting you nominate someone not presently on the Board."

This Just In: Ginger Hayes posts, regarding Fred Smoot's complaint, that

she thinks the EC has complied with Fred's requests and since the old

Board voted to accept the results, the matter is closed. She says, "It's

time to end this and get on with the business of the project. While I may

understand Fred's frustration at losing by a fairly narrow margin, there

comes a time when one should accept one's defeat gracefully and go on. It

would be better if all this energy were expended on something more

positive."

Its All Your Fault Anyways Corner: Brian "My Toys" Leverich has Spoken to

the State Coordinators on the subject of the ~cogenweb directory. He

says, "this whole thing looks like silly politics standing in the way of

serving our users. Lynn moved her page, which is perfectly fine. She

chose to move it to Crosswinds, which perhaps was a little less than

optimal because their connectivity is less than perfect and at some

times during the day folks are having trouble passing through the Colorado

state page on their way to the county pages." He goes on to say that RW

had a request from someone to set up an "an alternative COGenWeb page" for

visitors that had trouble accessing the COGW site and, of course, that

seemed like a peachy idea to RW. He continues, "FWIW, I think the right

solution for the users is for COGenWeb to move to some server that has

fewer connectivity problems and then to negotiate with the person is who

built then-unneeded ~cogenweb site to take it down."

Lynn's response to Brian notes the good ole days when RW was one of the

more unreliable servers going, with lots of down time, slow loads, etc.

She also reminds The Brain, "If you had not assigned those pages out,

without even letting the SC know there was a potential problem, there

would be NO need to 'negotiate' with anyone about removing unneeded and

misleading pages! When the REQUEST came in, why was I not contacted about

it?? Why was I completely bypassed, and new pages placed on Rootsweb to

take care of a problem that was NEVER brought to my attention??" She goes

on to castigate Brian "Careful, Or I'll Ban Ya" Leverich quite thoroughly:

"What right do you, Brian, have in telling any USGenWeb SC where they can

have their pages?? And what gives you the right to announce to the world

that the SC made a bad choice, just because the server they chose to use

wasn't yours?? ... What gives you the right to make decisions on how to

best serve the visitors to the USGW?...You have REPEATEDLY said that

hosting the USGenWeb Project has been bad business for RW. Then why do

you get so upset when we leave?? You have REPEATEDLY called us names,

talked down to us, and tell us what a pain in the backside we are. You

make decisions for us, without even the courtesy of consulting us on the

decisions you make... You are always screaming about 'saving our butts

again'!! You have used some of the worst language imaginable to us, and we

are supposed to sit here and take it!...I tried to support Rootsweb in

the only way that was available to me, by getting as much business on your

server as I could. I encouraged many CCs to go to Rootsweb. I told

everyone I knew how great your server was. I had no money I could help

support you with, and you made me feel like I was a leper by using your

services, that YOU offered to us for free! When you run someone down for

not financially supporting you when they cannot, and would have liked

to...then I don't feel like I should be using those 'free' services. The

price is just too high!!!"

[You go, girl!]

"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

---Saul Alinsky

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Sep 10 20:11:42 1999

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:11:41 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: New Flash!!

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990910201122.16075C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Friday 10 September 1999:

As of today, fully 6 months after he was first requested to do so, Mr.

Brian Leverich has decided he will ask Network Solutions to change the

administrative contacts on the usgenweb.org and usgenweb.net domains to

reflect the name of the current National Coordinator of the USGenWeb

Project.

Big of him, isn't it?

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Sep 11 11:08:35 1999

Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 11:08:34 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990911092930.7590A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

Daring to eat the peach...its your Daily Board Show!

*warning* This contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Thursday 9 September 1999: [additional messages]

On the subject of the ~cogenweb directory on RW, Ginger Hayes notes, "I

might have understood the redirect of www.usgenweb.org/co not being

changed due to whatever reason but issuing that account name outside of

the project is a different issue. While it may be legal for them to do so

it certainly does not speak of being supportive of the USGW Project.

It certainly does nothing to support good will between the project

and RW and adds considerable fuel to the fire of those who already

believe that RW bodes ill will toward the USGW Project." She notes that

RW is not run by idiots and someone there had to know that there would be

trouble over them reassigning a diretory with the official name of a USGW

state project to someone outside of the USGW.

Ginger H. also further asks the NC to ask RW what this is all about and if

RW is now using what is supposed to be USGW "domains" [I think she means

directories, but maybe not.] to forward to RW pages. She says, "I've been

a RootsWeb supporter for a long time, even though I haven't always agreed

with some of their decisions, but this is going a little to far. It has

all the appearances of a slap in the face to the USGW Project." She asks

that any clarification from Mr. Leverich be posted to the list.

Betsy Mills, paid RW employee, tells her that RW doesn't change redirects

until it is asked to do so, and "There is no slap in the face or anything

underhanded in this."

Shari Handley posts, "...we cannot dictate or "direct" RootsWeb to do

anything. They are within thier [sic] rights to do as they wish with the

~cogenweb directory name. However, the fact that they "can" does not mean

that they "should". She notes that the xxgenweb designation should be

reserved for the USGenWeb Project. She hopes that RW would, as a "good

neighbor", respect our bylaws [hah!], and suggests that someone ask Brian

if he would issue the "new CO project" a different directory name.

On the topic of a new Board secretary, Ginger Hayes says the secretary

should keep all the Board-L mail as the minutes of the meeting. She

agrees with the earlier post that the secretary should be a non-Board

member and should also be well-versed in parliamentary procedure.

On the topic of Fred Smoot's formal challenge of the election results,

Teri Pettit asks, "Can we ask Fred what action he wanted to see taken in

response to his protest?" She notes that although he posted 6 objections

to the election, his only specific request was that the message be posted

to Board-L. If all he wanted to do was log a protest, then the Board is

done with the issue but, she notes, she "can envision some changes being

made for next year's elections that might prevent similar complaints from

arising, so maybe we ought to start working on some changes to the

election process." She discusses extensively Fred's points, including the

neutrality of RW in hosting the elections, how to certify voters, whether

or not the Board needs to approve the election softward [she thinks not],

and issues regarding the security of the election software, incorrect

dates posted for the election, and Fred's request to be provided with

additional information so he could verify the validity of the election.

[good post, go read it.]

Jim Powell responds to Teri's post, agreeing with several of her points

and explaining the EC's actions in specific instances. He thinks its a

worthwhile to ask Fred what he expects to be done, and indicates that Fred

"would like for us to concentrate on a "Neutral" Server. (Personal

Opinion here ... You could not have found much more of a neutral server

than Rootsweb was on this election, but the appearance and the possibility

were there.)" He notes that he "would like to see each SC keep a current

voter list and then post it on a state website at a set time before each

election, allowing for a period of time to accept challenges or additions

of missing eligible voters," and that a procedure for certifying voters

should be established. Jim also notes that "Fred and his campaign manager

did request a list of votes with the time they were made, no names, no

email addresses. I have created such a list. The Election Committee

decided that the Board should decide if it should be released."

The NC asks him if "said list also contain the candidate voted for?"

Shari Handley says that asking Fred what he wants to do "makes sense" to

her, saying, "If Fred can let us know what he's got in mind, we can go

from there".

Friday 10 September 1999:

On the topic of Fred Smoot's formal complaint:

Jim tells the NC that "The list has Candidate voted for, date and time,

but no information to ID the voter."

Joe Zsedeny notes that, "This complaint is clearly a statement. If Fred

wants the Board to do anything we need to know what that anything is."

Ginger Hayes posts her note recommending that, "there comes a time when

one should accept one's defeat gracefully and go on. It would be better if

all this energy were expended on something more positive." [reported here

yesterday]

On the topic of the Board Secretary:

Tina Vickery asks, "In the past, what were the duties of the Secretary?"

All Broken Corner: Its been brought to our attention that the little

search engine that Root$web makes available for people to search

individual sites is broken and has been for some time. Many USGW CCs use

GenSeeker, but apparently were not notified that it is not working.

According to my Someone Who Knows, "A couple of weeks ago, a major power

outage occurred at the site where the GenSeeker search engine is housed.

Unfortunately, one of the disk drives was clobbered and the box is out of

service until it can be rebuilt and brought back online. There's no ETA,

though this is a high priority. This unplanned failure came at a very bad

time and the staff was heavily commited to other tasks." Supposedly the

hardware will be fixed as soon as possible and the database will be

rebuilt. In the meantime, its broken and users receive a "system not

responding" error message when they try to use it.

New ad sponsor seen at R$W: Heritage books.

"The function of the law is not to provide justice or to preserve freedom.

The function of the law is to keep those who hold power, in power."

---Gerry Spence

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Sep 11 13:19:41 1999

Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 13:19:39 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw-cc-l@usgennet.org

cc: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Forbes article

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990911131622.22938A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

Jen Godwin's Forbes Online article is out:

http://www.forbes.com/asap/html/99/0820/feat.htm

USGenWeb is not mentioned, and the Rootsweb Review is mistakenly called a

"mailing list", but its an interesting article.

-Teresa

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Sep 12 09:09:50 1999

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 09:09:46 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: DBS--News Flash!

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990912085454.6162A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

[This DBS News Flash is dedicated to the new "spirit of openness". All

the following conversation has occurred on BOARD-EXEC.]

We hear the Board is discussing the appointment of a new secretary. Joe

Zsedeny has proposed the following motion, saying, "It seems this list is

an appropiate forum to ensure proper wording, spelling and etc as Betsy

pointed out to me some time back. When we get it to everyone's

satisfaction we can take it to the Board list for a vote.":

"I move that the Board appoint a secretary for the one year term of

Board II. Further,

1. That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer

membership of the USGenWeb Project.

2. That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a

Board member.

3. That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and

appointed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of an

nominee will require the NC to forward another name.

The appointee must either be knowledgable in parlimentary procedure or

be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well

versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those

assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be

subscribed to all appropiate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists

would be the State SC list, the CC list, the Archives List, the Exec

list and the Board list."

Shari Handley compliments Joe on his good and work, but notes, "I think it

may be prudent to specify USGENWEB-ALL, rather than the more generic "the

CC list". As a matter of fact, it would probably be best to give the more

official designations of all of the lists mentioned: STATE-COORD-L,

USGENWEB-ALL-L, ARCHIVES-L (is that right?), BOARD-L, AND BOARD-EXEC-L."

Our estimable NC, who proposed the new "spirit of openness" approximately

one week ago, suggests these lists for the Board Secretary: "While I can

certainly ask that the Secretary be allowed at the very least, posting

privileges, I only maintain the State Coordinators, Board, and Board-Exec

lists...I'd suggest that the Secretary for posting purposes only be subbed

to: State-Coord, USGENWEB-All, the 4 regional lists, Archives, Tombstone,

Census. For note keeping purposes that the Secretary be subbed, with all

privileges to the Board, Board-Exec lists... Now there is one list I left

out which some may think appropriate to add for posting purposes only -

that being the usgw-cc list that several CCs are subbed to. I'll leave

that for the rest of you to figure out!"

In Other News: Lynn Waterman has resigned as CO State Coordinator and

joined another online genealogy/history project. She forwarded the

following resignation to several lists, "I have come to a crossroad in my

life, and need to make some changes. I will no longer work for Rootsweb

and their archives. I am leaving the project. All those that wish to

leave with me, I will be on ALHN. Thank you to those that have supported

me in the past, I truly appreciate it, and to those that didn't, all I can

say is: Get a life!"

There you have it...a Daily Board Show News Flash!

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------